In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.

Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.

While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?

To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.

Don't get messed up here - hyper-conformity means nothing else but succumbing to the system. Resisting the system means being an anti-conformist. You can easily figure out whose idea is sane, Deleuze & Guattari's or Jameson's mentioned some posts above by "Google in English."

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.

Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.

While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?

To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.

Don't get messed up here - hyper-conformity means nothing else but succumbing to the system. Resisting the system means being an anti-conformist. You can easily figure out whose idea is sane, Deleuze & Guattari's or Jameson's mentioned some posts above by "Google in English."

Reverends Michael Fleger (left) and Jesse Jackson march Monday with supporters to the Markham courthouse. The ministers attended a hearing on charges of trespassing in a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop in Riverdale.

Surrounded by ministers, anti-gun activists and two mothers who recently lost a child to gun violence, Reverends Jesse Jackson and Michael Pfleger said Monday they will keep the pressure on a Riverdale gun shop, even as they head to trial on trespassing charges. The ministers spoke outside the Markham courthouse, where they appeared on charges of trespassing stemming from a June protest at Chuck's Gun Shop and a confrontation with owner John Riggio. At Monday's hearing, which lasted just a few minutes, attorneys for Jackson and Pfleger asked for a jury trial, and a date was set for Nov. 26.

We were not guilty of trespassing," Jackson said to several dozen demonstrators Monday. "We're guilty of trying to stop the gun flow." During the confrontation, Riggio complained to police about the ministers, and they were taken into custody. Jackson and Pfleger continued to criticize gun laws as lax and gun manufacturers and sellers, whom they blame for violence in Chicago. "We want sensible gun laws," Jackson said. "You don't hunt with M-16s. You blow holes in tanks with those weapons. They were built just to kill people." In recent months, Jackson and Pfleger, who have called for a statewide ban on assault weapons, have been holding rallies and demonstrations to highlight the toll gun violence has taken on Chicago youths. Assault weapons are banned in Chicago, but the ministers say the law is useless because people buy them at shops, like Chuck's, in the inner-ring suburbs, then bring them into the city. "They don't manufacture guns in the ghetto," Jackson said. "They make the guns, they grow the drugs ... We go to jail and get killed from them."

Pfleger said the arrest was an attempt to intimidate them. "We're not going anywhere. We're going to step it up," he told supporters. Riggio appeared at the hearing but did not speak. He declined to comment afterward. Also present was Clara Allen, mother of a 21-year-old Northern Illinois University student who was fatally shot July 20 on the South Side. Allen said the death of her daughter, Dominique Willis, while she was home on summer break, has spurred her to get involved. "I will not quit," she said. "I lost my child. When will it end?" Annette Nance-Holt, the mother of Blair Holt, spoke to the same issue about her 16-year-old son, who was gunned down on a CTA bus in May while trying to save a friend. His murder, which occurred in the early afternoon, caused hundreds of leaders and residents to rally for solutions. "We shouldn't have to live with gun violence," Nance-Holt said. "No one should have to be in and out of court because their child was killed. I'm here to keep that from happening, if I can."

So how did it go, Elaine?

Unfortunately, despite protests of this type, the courts have upheld the right to bear arms.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

The Second Amendment provides Americans a fundamental right to bear arms that cannot be violated by state and local governments, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun-control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution. One justice predicted that an "avalanche" of lawsuits would be filed across the country asking federal judges to define the boundaries of gun ownership and government regulation.The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

probe, in June of last year, Mayor Daley said the city would rewrite its gun ban ordinance because a Supreme Court ruling today has made the current law "unenforceable." Daley said a new ordinance would be drafted soon and would protect the residents of Chicago as well as 2nd Amendment rights.

"I'm disappointed by the decision, but it's not surprising," Daley said at a news conference. "We're still reviewing the entire decision, but it means that Chicago's current handgun ban is unenforceable, so we're working to rewrite our ordinance in a reasonable and responsible way to protect 2nd Amendment rights and protect Chicagoans from gun violence." The mayor made the announcement hours after the Supreme Court said Americans nationwide have a constitutional right to have a handgun at home for self-defense, even in cities which until now have outlawed handguns.

In terms of power the capitalists who are under the illusions of power are happy with the illusions! The seduction back though is results in hyperconformity in this material world. Hyperconformity is the ultimate resistance.

Basically Baudrillard's ironic hyperconformity strategy. The problem here is that, at least on the face of it, this strategy of "resistance" looks a lot like surrender. What presumably prevents it from being mere capitulation is the inability of the strategy to be represented in any other than in an ironic, non-serious way. Undoubtedly, in contemporary mass societies, to some extent the power is being seduced and eleminated by the mass media. However, a strategy of resistance attuned to Baudrillard's version of America hardly has much relevance in the rest of the world. Nor, with the exception of some privileged groups who can manipulate media happenings, does it make much sense even for groups in America.

While Baudrillard argued that hyperconformity can bring down the system under its own weight, don't you think that if people (at least some or even most) come to believe in it they will turn away from the hyperconformity?

To answer your question, No - I don't think most (or even some) will turn away from hyperconformity. Not because they would necessarily want to do away with the system - simply because they would not know what else to do.

You've got to be kidding us, lawn! You obviously don't have the slighest idea what does it feel like t o kill. Here it is how researchers have described the whole process:

Concern about Being Able to Kill. Holmes' research indicates that one of the soldier's first emotional responses to killing is a concern as to whether, at the moment of truth, he will be able to kill the enemy or will "freeze up" and "let his buddies down." [...]

The Killing Stage: "Without even thinking." Usually killing in combat is completed in the heat of the moment, and for the modern, properly conditioned soldier, killing in such a circumstance is most often completed reflexively, without conscious thought. Being unable to kill is a very common experience. If on the battlefield the soldier finds himself unable to kill, he can either begin to rationalize what has occurred, or he can become fixated and traumatized by his inability to kill.

The Exhilaration Stage: "I had a Feeling of the Most Intense Satisfaction." The adrenaline of combat can be greatly increased by another high: the high of killing. What hunter of marksman has not felt a thrill of pleasure and satisfaction upon dropping his target? In combat this thrill can be greatly magnified and can be especially prevalent when the kill is completed at medium to long range. Fighter pilots, by their nature, and due to the long range of their kills, appear to be particularly susceptible to such killing addiction. For some combatants the lure of exhiliration may become more than a passing occurrence. A few may become fixated in the exhiliration stage and never feel remorse.

The Remorse Stage: A Collage of Pain and Horror. The tremendous and intense remorse and revulsion associated with a close-range kill is expressed in these words:

Quote

"... my experience, was one of revulsion and disgust... I dropped my weapon and cried... There was so much blood... I vomited... And I cried... I felt remorse and shame. I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up."

Whether the killer denies his remorse, deals with it, or is overwhelmed by it, it is nevertheless there, almost always. The killer's remorse is real, it is common, it is intense, and it is something that he must deal with for the rest of his life.

The Rationalization and Acceptance Stage: "It Took All the Rationalization I Could Muster." The next personal-kill response stage is a lifelong process in which the killer attempts to rationalize and accept what he has done. This process may never truly be completed. The killer never completely leaves all remorse and guilt beyond, but he can usually come to accept that what he has done was necessary and right. In personal accounts of those who have killed one may notice the use of specific words. At first, for instance, use of words such as "he" "him" and "his" shows the recognition of the killer's humanity. But then the enemy's weapon is noted, the rationalization process begins, and "he" becomes "the body" and ultimately the "gook." Once the process begins, irrational and irrelevant supporting evidence is gathered, and the possession of, say, U.S.-made shoes and a watch becomes a cause for depersonalization rather than identification.

So basically you are saying that there is this resistance to the whole thing and that even if they overcome it, it comes back to haunt them? Not sure if I am getting you here

You've got to be kidding us, lawn! You obviously don't have the slightest idea what does it feel like t o kill. Here it is how researchers have described the whole process:

Concern about Being Able to Kill. Holmes' research indicates that one of the soldier's first emotional responses to killing is a concern as to whether, at the moment of truth, he will be able to kill the enemy or will "freeze up" and "let his buddies down." [...]

The Killing Stage: "Without even thinking." Usually killing in combat is completed in the heat of the moment, and for the modern, properly conditioned soldier, killing in such a circumstance is most often completed reflexively, without conscious thought. Being unable to kill is a very common experience. If on the battlefield the soldier finds himself unable to kill, he can either begin to rationalize what has occurred, or he can become fixated and traumatized by his inability to kill.

The Exhilaration Stage: "I had a Feeling of the Most Intense Satisfaction." The adrenaline of combat can be greatly increased by another high: the high of killing. What hunter of marksman has not felt a thrill of pleasure and satisfaction upon dropping his target? In combat this thrill can be greatly magnified and can be especially prevalent when the kill is completed at medium to long range. Fighter pilots, by their nature, and due to the long range of their kills, appear to be particularly susceptible to such killing addiction. For some combatants the lure of exhilaration may become more than a passing occurrence. A few may become fixated in the exhilaration stage and never feel remorse.

The Remorse Stage: A Collage of Pain and Horror. The tremendous and intense remorse and revulsion associated with a close-range kill is expressed in these words:

Quote

"... my experience, was one of revulsion and disgust... I dropped my weapon and cried... There was so much blood... I vomited... And I cried... I felt remorse and shame. I can remember whispering foolishly, "I'm sorry" and then just throwing up."

Whether the killer denies his remorse, deals with it, or is overwhelmed by it, it is nevertheless there, almost always. The killer's remorse is real, it is common, it is intense, and it is something that he must deal with for the rest of his life.

The Rationalization and Acceptance Stage: "It Took All the Rationalization I Could Muster." The next personal-kill response stage is a lifelong process in which the killer attempts to rationalize and accept what he has done. This process may never truly be completed. The killer never completely leaves all remorse and guilt beyond, but he can usually come to accept that what he has done was necessary and right. In personal accounts of those who have killed one may notice the use of specific words. At first, for instance, use of words such as "he" "him" and "his" shows the recognition of the killer's humanity. But then the enemy's weapon is noted, the rationalization process begins, and "he" becomes "the body" and ultimately the "gook." Once the process begins, irrational and irrelevant supporting evidence is gathered, and the possession of, say, U.S.-made shoes and a watch becomes a cause for depersonalization rather than identification.

So basically you are saying that there is this resistance to the whole thing and that even if they overcome it, it comes back to haunt them? Not sure if I am getting you here

administrator, when you say, "this resistance to the whole thing," don't you think you are being a bit too casual about such a serious thing as killing? Of course there is resistance, and then guilt haunting people for their entire lives, in case they overcome the resistance and actually kill someone.

You've got to be kidding me with this thread - an individual who has the intent to kill will do it with whatever he finds on his way - for example, cars are known to have been used extensively as weapons. Cars as weapons are less used to kill than in road accidents, but do occur from time to time. The driver may be drunk or on drugs, or just homicidal - cars can be weapons of death just as fearful as the loaded guns.

in lieu of, it's not that simple - the very act of getting a gun shows strong intent on your part to harm someone. You drive a car to get to work, to the store and so on, and only incidentally to harm someone.

Dear pome: that's what this thread is all about: guns should not be available to purchase for a fee, as the case is in the US.

email, I heard they went bankrupt - Sandra's taken a job at the local community college, distancing herself from all previous undertakings, and Terry's been discredited for being a fraud, copying others' people research and passing it for his own!